BHARTI @ BHOORI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/plaintiff taking exception to the order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the trial court, has approached this court with the grievance that by the impugned order, the petitioner has been subjected to the double jeopardy, as much as, not only the petitioner's application for amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code is dismissed but the right to lead evidence has also been closed.

(2.) It is contended that the suit for declaration and injunction is pending consideration. During pendency of the suit due to the subsequent event in the contest of breaking the wall and the stairs leading to the passage towards the plaintiff's house, defendants have raised an iron gate and thereby have taken possession of the suit site. Therefore, an amendment application was filed seeking leave of the court to incorporate the alleged incident as well as the relief of recovery of possession.

(3.) The said application has been rejected on the premise that the suit though is of the year 2014 and as many as 15 opportunities have been afforded to the petitioner/plaintiff to lead evidence but instead of leading evidence, plaintiff has moved an application for amendment, therefore, the amendment has been found to be lacking in bona fide and therefore, commenting upon the conduct of the petitioner/plaintiff, the impugned order has been passed.